Get serious on school funding

The just-completed legislative session is best understood as a preview of coming distractions. Lawmakers teed up campaign themes — tax loopholes, standardized tests, minimum wage — that won’t be improved by reduction to bumper-stickers or flyers.

“When you’re explaining, you’re losing,” political consultants say. Contemporary campaigns are not seminars. They’re sound bites and caricature, often masterpieces of misdirection. That, in part, suggests that we may hear less than we should about the magnitude of the education funding challenge lawmakers will face next January.

In 2012, the state Supreme Court ruled its McCleary decision that the state was not meeting its constitutional obligation to fund basic education. The court found that school districts relied too much on local levies for core operations. Basic education is a state responsibility; local levies are unpredictable, subject to voter approval and vary widely across the state. The justices cited legislation redefining basic education, passed in 2009 and 2010, and said they would accept the Legislature’s own assessment of the funding required to meet those expectations. In 2013 lawmakers put an additional $982 million toward meeting the McCleary requirement, without raising taxes.

The court recognized progress, but expressed dissatisfaction in an order signed by eight justices on Jan. 9. In their second opinion, the justices appeared to raise the bar a bit, citing teacher compensation and the deferral of cost-of-living allowances. The court said the 2014 session gave lawmakers “an opportunity to take a significant step forward,” and required the Legislature to submit a funding plan for each year up to the 2017-18 school year when full funding is to be achieved.

The budget adopted this session adds just under $60 million toward McCleary. The court will doubtless see that as less than “a significant step forward.”

Math matters. Given the language of the court’s last order, the state’s two-year budget will have to increase basic education funding by $3.5 billion in the 2017-19 biennium. (Even if lawmakers reject the compensation figures, the estimated requirement is nearly $2.5 billion.) Roughly half of that should come in the budget session beginning next January.

Revenues are growing, but not fast enough to close the shortfall without substantial cuts in every other part of the budget. Higher education, as a largely discretionary budget item, often takes the hit. But there’s a widespread consensus that higher education funding needs to grow to keep up with student and workplace demand. Social service funding, especially for health care, has grown rapidly, yet federal and state entitlement requirements make spending hard to control.

Near the end of the session, Senate budget leader Andy Hill, R-Redmond, proposed dedicating for the next 10 years two-thirds of all new money to education (K-12 and higher education). The priority is right, if formulaic. Yet the projected revenue stream won’t meet the court’s highest McCleary standard by 2018, even assuming control of entitlement spending. Protecting higher education adds to the challenge.

House Democrats talked about closing loopholes. But their proposals come nowhere near closing the McCleary shortfall. Loophole prospectors have mined the exemptions list for years. There’s no pot of gold.

The big numbers come by raising sales and business taxes. A half-cent hike in the sales tax raises about $650 million a year, about what you’d get by raising B&O taxes by nearly 20 percent. No one believes the Legislature will do that or that voters would let it stick if they did.

There’s no easy fix. One alternative with bipartisan support — Republican Sen. Joe Zarelli and Democratic Rep. Ross Hunter independently raised the idea in 2012 envisioned increasing untapped capacity in state property tax levy, with offsetting decreases in local school levies. The plan would increase state education funding, while reducing districts’ reliance on local levies. It could be revenue neutral or allow districts to seek voter approval for enhanced funding. In the 2012 gubernatorial campaign, Rob McKenna supported the concept; Jay Inslee opposed it. As deadlines approach, the plan merits consideration.

Between now and the fall elections, there will be a lot of political distractions. Serious school funding plans don’t fit on postcards. But we should expect our legislators to understand the options and to explain to us just what they plan to do.

Email Richard S. Davis address is

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, Jan. 16

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Commentary: What’s love got to do with MLK Jr.’s dream?

For King, love was not sentimental; it’s a key part of creating communities that work for everyone.

Wilkinson: Trump may want to rethink his invite to Norwegians

If they come here they’ll just bring their socialized health care, Teslas and stunning good looks.

Harrop: Democrats need to learn how to strike up the band

Modesty is a fine character trait, but it’s sapping Democrats of a message that shows their success.

Saunders: Ethanol fuel mandate no longer makes sense

Intended to reduce reliance on foreign oil, it now only results in higher food and fuel costs.

Housing projects depend on capital budget passage by Jan. 17

Communities throughout Snohomish County and around the state are struggling with an… Continue reading

Where did man who shot, killed deputy get his gun?

Excuse me if you heard this before: “The only way to stop… Continue reading

Rep. DelBene is too rich to represent our district

We need to make Congress normal again. Right now, that’s just not… Continue reading

AG’s proposed assault weapon ban violates state Constitution

Once again Bob Ferguson is insisting on punishing law abiding Washingtonians by… Continue reading

Most Read